House prices have fallen 20% in 5 years

chewmylegoff

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Thats not the whole of the UK

I was going to also start one of those "is the graph real or nominal prices" or is....
And then do you know what, I thought zzzzzzzzzz I cannot be arsed:)

With you anyway

i didn't say it was the whole of the uk, but your general supposition that property was a bad investment from 2005 onwards is very obviously wrong.

the real vs. nominal debate is one to be had - but of course you cannot just look at the capital value, you need to also consider the income you have earned from the asset. (unless your objective is to make an unfair comparison in order to "prove" your point, of course).

JonnyBravo

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Thats not the whole of the UK

I was going to also start one of those "is the graph real or nominal prices" or is....
And then do you know what, I thought zzzzzzzzzz I cannot be arsed:)

With you anyway

Ah bless.
Is chewy being naughty? Pointing out silly "minor inconsistencies" in what you say?
Naughty chewy and naughty South East.... how very dare they.

DervProf

ess0two wrote: »

Yeah i'm sure the Police will breaking his door down for signing back onto an internet forum.

I'm sure that being very naughty isn't always illegal, and in this case I don't think the law needs to get involved.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

It's a very good point but I guess it comes down to what you want to debate:

1. House prices are down hugely in real terms (outside London)
2. Total cost of house ownership when financed with a mortgage is probably falling quickly too

The interesting thing for me is the real (RPI inflation adjusted) change in average house prices. They have been falling for 5 years now and show no sign of turning around.

So, you have some stats on RPI in the last 5 years and a propoal that a property bought in 2005 on a 20 repayment would be significantly through it's mortgage.

Which is the better position?

In my opinion, I'd rather have less than 13 years to go

noodle_doodle

Bit disingenuous to say millions of people are fubar'ed because their houses are valued at less than they were 5 years ago though, as millions of people didn't buy their houses right at the peak. And out of those that did only first-time buyers would have copped the bullet, as people trading-up or down would have sold their old property at peak too. For most mortgagees that sharp peak was something they sailed right through without noticing one way or the other.

The nominal v real thing is worth a mention, 20% down (or 10% in the other indices) over 5 years is 4% a year. We all know inflation has beat that number easily in the same time however much the gubment try to fiddle the stats.



PS. If houses have fallen by 20%, why is only one areas listed as having a 20%+ fall? That makes no statistical sense. Though I am quite willing to believe prices have fallen by 20% and the express is just useless with its data.

chewmylegoff

noodle_doodle wrote: »

PS. If houses have fallen by 20%, why is only one areas listed as having a 20%+ fall? That makes no statistical sense. Though I am quite willing to believe prices have fallen by 20% and the express is just useless with its data.

the express is using the land registry as a source, and i think they have houses down about 10% from peak. 20% down is what the halifax index (quoted in the opening post of this thread and the basis of the 20% drop headline) shows, and nationwide is about 10% down IIRC.

whilst you may look at the express's land registry numbers and think that they look like they average more than 10%, they appear to have excluded london which is up a couple of %.

noodle_doodle

ah, so they've used one figure in the headline and then stuck someone else's figures in the graphic. It makes sense now as isn't the halifax's lending skewed towards the north of the country where falls have been bigger?

The-Joker

The-Joker wrote: »

It is true are you trying to say its not true?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Of course it's not true.

So your now saying its not true that you famously said when you joined "Gold and silver were going to crash 100% guaranteed" ?

Silver was £5 oz then and now it is £20 and looking like it will keep going up at this rate for many years to come?

JonnyBravo

The-Joker wrote: »

Silver was £5 oz then and now it is £20 and looking like it will keep going up at this rate for many years to come?

You're doing it wrong.
You're measuring silver's worth in useless FIAT currency. You need to use bussels of weat (sic).
Measure stuff with stuff.


But still buy silver.

Loughton_Monkey

The-Joker wrote: »

So your now saying its not true that you famously said when you joined "Gold and silver were going to crash 100% guaranteed" ?

Silver was £5 oz then and now it is £20 and looking like it will keep going up at this rate for many years to come?

Not trying to be funny, but....

With a name like "The-joker", shouldn't your posts be mildly amusing?